| | english | español | français |
Go to record ID

  Home|Finding Information|Record details   Printer-friendly version

Second Regular National Report on the Implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
Record information and status
Record ID
102646
Status
Published
Date of creation
2011-10-31 19:11 UTC (andrew.bowers@cbd.int)
Date of last update
2015-02-25 08:48 UTC (bongani@sea.org.sz)
Date of publication
2015-02-25 08:48 UTC (bongani@sea.org.sz)

Origin of report
Country
  • Swaziland
Contact officer for report
Coordinates
Mr Stephen Zuke
Director of Policy, Research & Information
Swaziland Environment Authority
P.O.Box 2602
Mbabane
Swaziland
Phone:+268 2404 6960 / 7893
Fax:+268 2404 1719
Email:szuke@sea.org.sz
Consulted stakeholders
9. Organizations/stakeholders who were consulted or participated in the preparation of this report
Swaziland Environment Authority; University of Swaziland; Industry; Ministry of Agriculture; Biosafety Public Awareness and Participation platform
Submission
10. Date of submission
2011-10-17
11. Time period covered by this report
Start date
2001-10-31
Time period covered by this report
End date
2010-10-31
Party to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
12. Is your country a Party to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB)?
  • Yes
Article 2 – General provisions
15. Has your country introduced the necessary legal, administrative and other measures for the implementation of the Protocol?
  • A domestic regulatory framework is partially in place
16. Which specific instruments are in place for the implementation of your national biosafety framework?
  • Other laws, regulations or guidelines that indirectly apply to biosafety
17. Has your country established a mechanism for the budgetary allocations of funds for the operation of its national biosafety framework?
  • Yes
18. Does your country have permanent staff to administer functions directly related to the national biosafety framework?
  • Yes
19. If you answered Yes to question 18, how many permanent staff members are in place whose functions are directly related to the national biosafety framework?
  • Less than 5
20. Has your country’s biosafety framework / laws / regulations / guidelines been submitted to the Biosafety Clearing-House (BCH)?
  • Yes
21. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 2 in your country:
The National Biosafety Framework has been submitted to the BCH.
Article 5 – Pharmaceuticals
22. Does your country regulate the transboundary movement, handling and use of living modified organisms (LMOs) which are pharmaceuticals?
  • No
Article 6 – Transit and Contained use
25. Does your country regulate the transit of LMOs?
  • No
26. Does your country regulate the contained use of LMOs?
  • No
28. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 6 in your country:
To date, the country has not handled the transit and contained use LMOs. However, the draft law has provisions for regulating the transit and contained use of LMOs.
Articles 7 to 10 – Advance Informed Agreement (AIA) and intentional introduction of LMOs into the environment
29. Has your country adopted law(s) / regulations / administrative measures for the operation of the AIA procedure of the Protocol?
  • No
30. Has your country adopted a domestic regulatory framework consistent with the Protocol regarding the transboundary movement of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • No
31. Has your country established a mechanism for taking decisions regarding first intentional transboundary movements of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • No
33. Has your country established a mechanism for monitoring potential effects of LMOs that are released into the environment?
  • No
34. Does your country have the capacity to detect and identify LMOs?
  • Yes, to some extent
35. Has your country established legal requirements for exporters under its jurisdiction to notify in writing the competent national authority of the Party of import prior to the intentional transboundary movement of an LMO that falls within the scope of the AIA procedure?
  • No
36. Has your country established legal requirements for the accuracy of information contained in the notification?
  • No
37. Has your country ever received an application / notification regarding intentional transboundary movements of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • Yes
38. Has your country ever taken a decision on an application / notification regarding intentional transboundary movements of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • Yes
39. If you answered Yes to question 38, how many LMOs has your country approved to date for import for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • None
40. If you answered Yes to question 38, how many LMOs, not imported, has your country approved to date for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • None
41. In the current reporting period, how many applications/notifications has your country received regarding intentional transboundary movements of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • Less than 5
42. In the current reporting period, how many decisions has your country taken regarding intentional transboundary movements of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • Less than 5
43. With reference to the decisions taken on intentional transboundary movements of LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment, has your country received a notification from the Party(ies) of export or from the exporter(s) prior to the transboundary movement?
  • No
44. Did the notifications contain complete information (at a minimum the information specified in Annex I of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety)?
  • Not applicable
45. Has your country acknowledged receipt of the notifications to the notifier within ninety days of receipt?
  • Not applicable
46. Has your country informed the notifier(s) and the BCH of its decision(s)?
  • Not applicable
47. Has your country informed the notifier(s) and the BCH of its decision(s) in due time (within 270 days or the period specified in your communication to the notifier)?
  • Not applicable
48. What percentage of your country’s decisions fall into the following categories?
  • Prohibition of the import/use of the LMO(s)
100%
  • Request for additional relevant information
100%
49. In cases where your country approved an import with conditions or prohibited an import, did it provide reasons on which its decisions were based to the notifier and the BCH?
  • In some cases only the notifier
50. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Articles 7-10 in your country, including measures in case of lack of scientific certainty on potential adverse effects of LMOs for intentional introduction to the environment:
Three applications were received for the introduction of cotton, maize  and soya beans to the environment. The applictions could not be processed due  to the fact that the legislation is not yet in force. Additionally, the applications were not in conformity with Annex 1 of the protocol, which details information required in notifications and the applicants were requested to furnish additional information, which was never forthcoming.
Article 11 – Procedure for living modified organisms intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing (LMOs-FFP)
51. Has your country adopted specific law(s) or regulation(s) for decision-making regarding domestic use, including placing on the market, of LMOs-FFP?
  • No
52. Has your country established legal requirements for the accuracy of information to be provided by the applicant?
  • No
53. Has your country established a mechanism to ensure that decisions regarding LMOs-FFP that may be subject to transboundary movement will be communicated to the Parties through the BCH?
  • Yes
54. Has your country established a mechanism for taking decisions on the import of LMOs-FFP?
  • Yes
55. Has your country declared through the BCH that in the absence of a regulatory framework its decisions prior to the first import of an LMO-FFP will be taken according to Article 11.6 of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety?
  • No
56. Has your country indicated its needs for financial and technical assistance and capacity building in respect of LMOs-FFP?
  • Yes
57. Has your country ever taken a decision on LMOs-FFP (either on import or domestic use)?
  • Yes
58. How many LMOs-FFP has your country approved to date?
  • Less than 5
59. In the current reporting period, how many decisions has your country taken regarding the import of LMOs-FFP?
  • Less than 5
60. In the current reporting period, how many decisions has your country taken regarding domestic use, including placing on the market, of LMOs-FFP?
  • Less than 5
61. Has your country informed the Parties through the BCH of its decision(s) regarding import, of LMOs-FFP?
  • No
62. Has your country informed the Parties through the BCH of its decision(s) regarding domestic use, including placing on the market, of LMOs-FFP within 15 days?
  • No
63. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 11 in your country, including measures in case of lack of scientific certainty on potential adverse effects of LMOs-FFP:
There has been adoption of administrative procedures as per Annex II of the protocol, which details information required concerning LMOs intended for direct use as FFP. Mandatory procedures include a communication by the importer, milling of the commodity prior to entry or close supervision from port of entry to destination for monitoring the destruction of embryo, e.g. by milling and heating. Import permits are issued and remain valid for a 30 day period.
Article 12 – Review of decision
64. Has your country established a mechanism for the review and change of a decision regarding an intentional transboundary movement of LMOs?
  • No
65. Has your country ever received a request for a review of a decision?
  • No
66. Has your country ever reviewed / changed a decision regarding an intentional transboundary movement of LMOs?
  • No
67. In the current reporting period, how many decisions were reviewed and/or changed regarding an intentional transboundary movement of an LMO?
  • None
71. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 12 in your country:
Pending the enactment of the domestic Biosafety  Bill, no review decision can be made
Article 13 – Simplified procedure
72. Has your country established a system for the application of the simplified procedure regarding an intentional transboundary movement of LMOs?
  • No
73. Has your country ever applied the simplified procedure?
  • No
75. In the current reporting period, how many LMOs has your country applied the simplified procedure to?
  • None
76. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 13 in your country:
The Biosafety Bill provides for simplified application and review procedures. However, since the Bill has not yet been adopted, these are not being implemented as yet.
Article 14 – Bilateral, regional and multilateral agreements and arrangements
77. Has your country entered into any bilateral, regional or multilateral agreements or arrangements?
  • Yes
78. If you answered Yes to question 77, has your country informed the Parties through the BCH of the agreements or arrangements?
  • No
79. If you answered Yes to question 77, please provide a brief description of the scope and objective of the agreements or arrangements entered into:
The country has no bi-lateral agreement at the momemt. However it has endorsed the Southern African Development Guidelines on GMOs, Biotechnology and Biosafety. The scope of the guidelines covers handling of LMO food aid, policy and regulations, public awareness and participation and capacity building.
80. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 14 in your country:
SADC Ministers of Agriculture have agreed that all imports intended for donor food in the region should be milled prior ro distribution.
Article 15 – Risk assessment
81. Has your country established a mechanism for conducting risk assessments prior to taking decisions regarding LMOs?
  • No
83. Has your country established guidelines for how to conduct risk assessments prior to taking decisions regarding LMOs?
  • No
84. Has your country acquired the necessary domestic capacity to conduct risk assessment?
  • Yes
85. Has your country established a mechanism for training national experts to conduct risk assessments?
  • Yes
86. Has your country ever conducted a risk assessment of an LMO for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • No
87. Has your country ever conducted a risk assessment of an LMO intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing?
  • No
88. If your country has taken decision(s) on LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment or on domestic use of LMOs-FFP, were risk assessments conducted for all decisions taken?
  • No
89. Has your country submitted summary reports of the risk assessments to the BCH?
  • Not applicable
90. In the current reporting period, if your country has taken decisions regarding LMOs, how many risk assessments were conducted in the context of these decisions?
  • None
91. Has your country ever required the exporter to conduct the risk assessment(s)?
  • No
92. Has your country ever required the notifier to bear the cost of the risk assessment(s) of LMOs?
  • No
93. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 15 in your country:
Risk assessments summaries have been considered for the first introduction of LMO-FFPs since these are the only ones we have approved so far. In all cases, the notifier was required to provide existing risk assessment summaries of the events contained in the consignments.
Article 16 – Risk management
94. Has your country established and maintained appropriate and operational mechanisms, measures and strategies to regulate, manage and control risks identified in risk assessments for:
94.1) LMOs for intentional introduction into the environment?
  • No
94.2) LMOs intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing?
  • Yes, to some extent
95. Has your country established and maintained appropriate measures to prevent unintentional transboundary movements of LMOs?
  • No
96. Has your country taken measures to ensure that any LMO, whether imported or locally developed, undergoes an appropriate period of observation that is commensurate with its life-cycle or generation time before it is put to its intended use?
  • No
97. Has your country cooperated with other Parties with a view to identifying LMOs or specific traits that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity?
  • No
98. Has your country cooperated with other Parties with a view to taking measures regarding the treatment of LMOs or specific traits that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity?
  • No
99. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 16 in your country, including any details regarding risk management strategies, also in case of lack of scientific certainty on potential adverse effects of LMOs:
Swaziland has minimised risks by applying the SADC Guidelines on GMOs especially those meant for Food, Feed, and Processing as it is the only category allowed so far. Management strategies entailed milling and sterilisation for embryo destruction before distribution of food aid to communities. A holistic risk management strategy to guide all stakeholders is being developed and will be further amplified in the forthcoming regulations of the Biosafety Act.
Article 17 – Unintentional transboundary movements and emergency measures
100. Has your country made available to the BCH the relevant details setting out its point of contact for the purposes of receiving notifications under Article 17?
  • Yes
101. Has your country established a mechanism for addressing emergency measures in case of unintentional transboundary movements of LMOs that are likely to have significant adverse effect on biological diversity?
  • No
102. Has your country implemented emergency measures in response to information about releases that led, or may have led, to unintentional transboundary movements of LMOs?
  • No
103. In the current reporting period, how many times has your country received information concerning occurrences that led, or may have led, to unintentional transboundary movement(s) of one or more LMOs to or from territories under its jurisdiction?
  • Never
107. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 17 in your country:
While there are no cases reported to the NCA, possibility of such occurrences is likeky. The country is thus gearing itself towards putting contingecny mechanisms to promptly deal with them. Further, existing relations with neighbouring states would enable cooperative measures during unintentional transboundary movements of LMOs.
Article 18 – Handling, transport, packaging and identification
108. Has your country taken measures to require that LMOs that are subject to transboundary movement are handled, packaged and transported under conditions of safety, taking into account relevant international rules and standards?
  • Yes, to some extent
109. Has your country taken measures to require that documentation accompanying LMOs-FFP clearly identifies that, in cases where the identity of the LMOs is not known through means such as identity preservation systems, they may contain living modified organisms and are not intended for intentional introduction into the environment, as well as a contact point for further information?
  • Yes
110. Has your country taken measures to require that documentation accompanying LMOs-FFP clearly identifies that, in cases where the identity of the LMOs is known through means such as identity preservation systems, they contain living modified organisms and are not intended for intentional introduction into the environment, as well as a contact point for further information?
  • Yes
111. Has your country taken measures to require that documentation accompanying LMOs that are destined for contained use clearly identifies them as living modified organisms and specifies any requirements for the safe handling, storage, transport and use, the contact point for further information, including the name and address of the individual and institution to whom the LMO are consigned?
  • No
112. Has your country taken measures to require that documentation accompanying LMOs that are intended for intentional introduction into the environment of the Party of import, clearly identifies them as living modified organisms; specifies the identity and relevant traits and/or characteristics, any requirements for the safe handling, storage, transport and use, the contact point for further information and, as appropriate, the name and address of the importer and exporter; and contains a declaration that the movement is in conformity with the requirements of this Protocol applicable to the exporter?
  • No
113. Does your country have the capacity to enforce the requirements of identification and documentation of LMOs?
  • Yes, to some extent
114. Has your country established procedures for the sampling and detection of LMOs?
  • No
115. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 18 in your country:
In its authorisation permit for LMO-FFPs, Swaziland has set up conditions for all imports of LMOs into the country. Consignments need to be transported in sealed containers from the loading zone to point of delivery in order to avoid spillages and unintentional release into into the environment. In terms of en-route requirements trucks should have satellite tracking and report promptly any spillages. These consignments should further be are accompanied by appropriate documentaion.
Article 19 – Competent National Authorities and National Focal Points
116. Has your country designated one national focal point for the Cartagena Protocol to be responsible for liaison with the Secretariat?
  • Yes
117. Has your country designated one national focal point for the Biosafety Clearing-House to liaise with the Secretariat regarding issues of relevance to the development and implementation of the BCH?
  • Yes
118. Has your country designated one or more competent national authorities, which are responsible for performing the administrative functions required by the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and are authorized to act on your country’s behalf with respect to those functions?
  • Yes, one
120. Has your country made available the required information referred in questions 116-119 to the BCH?
  • Yes, all information
122. Has your country established adequate institutional capacity to enable the competent national authority(ies) to perform the administrative functions required by the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety?
  • Yes
123. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 19 in your country:
The country has only one Competent National Authority for the time being.  In the draft law under debate, there is provision for more than one Competent National Authorities and these will be appointed once the law comes into effect.
Article 20 – Information Sharing and the Biosafety Clearing-House (BCH)
124. Please provide an overview of the status of the information provided by your country to the BCH by specifying for each category of information whether it is available and whether it has been submitted to the BCH.
124.a) Existing national legislation, regulations and guidelines for implementing the Protocol, as well as information required by Parties for the advance informed agreement procedure (Article 20, paragraph 3 (a))
  • Information available but only partially available in the BCH
124.b) National laws, regulations and guidelines applicable to the import of LMOs intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing (Article 11, paragraph 5)
  • Information available but not in the BCH
124.c) Bilateral, multilateral and regional agreements and arrangements (Articles 14, paragraph 2 and 20, paragraph 3 (b))
  • Information available but not in the BCH
124.d) Contact details for competent national authorities (Article 19, paragraphs 2 and 3), national focal points (Article 19, paragraphs 1 and 3), and emergency contacts (Article 17, paragraph 3 (e))
  • Information available and in the BCH
124.e) Reports submitted by the Parties on the operation of the Protocol (Article 20, paragraph 3 (e))
  • Information available and in the BCH
124.f) Decisions by a Party on regulating the transit of specific living modified organisms (LMOs) (Article 6, paragraph 1)
  • Information not available
124.g) Occurrence of unintentional transboundary movements that are likely to have significant adverse effects on biological diversity (Article 17, paragraph 1)
  • Information not available
124.h) Illegal transboundary movements of LMOs (Article 25, paragraph 3)
  • Information not available
124.i) Final decisions regarding the importation or release of LMOs (i.e. approval or prohibition, any conditions, requests for further information, extensions granted, reasons for decision) (Articles 10, paragraph 3 and 20, paragraph 3(d))
  • Information available but not in the BCH
124.j) Information on the application of domestic regulations to specific imports of LMOs (Article 14, paragraph 4)
  • Information not available
124.k) Final decisions regarding the domestic use of LMOs that may be subject to transboundary movement for direct use as food or feed, or for processing (Article 11, paragraph 1)
  • Information available but not in the BCH
124.l) Final decisions regarding the import of LMOs intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing that are taken under domestic regulatory frameworks (Article 11, paragraph 4) or in accordance with annex III (Article 11, paragraph 6) (requirement of Article 20, paragraph 3(d))
  • Information not available
124.m) Declarations regarding the framework to be used for LMOs intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing (Article 11, paragraph 6)
  • Information not available
124.n) Review and change of decisions regarding intentional transboundary movements of LMOs (Article 12, paragraph 1)
  • Information not available
124.o) LMOs granted exemption status by each Party (Article 13, paragraph 1)
  • Information not available
124.p) Cases where intentional transboundary movement may take place at the same time as the movement is notified to the Party of import (Article 13, paragraph 1)
  • Information not available
124.q) Summaries of risk assessments or environmental reviews of LMOs generated by regulatory processes and relevant information regarding products thereof (Article 20, paragraph 3 (c))
  • Information available but not in the BCH
125. Has your country established a mechanism for strengthening the capacity of the BCH National Focal Point to perform its administrative functions?
  • Yes
126. Has your country established a mechanism for the coordination among the BCH National Focal Point, the Cartagena Protocol focal point, and the competent national authority(ies) for making information available to the BCH?
  • Yes
127. Does your country use the information available in the BCH in its decision making processes on LMOs?
  • Yes, always
128. Has your country experienced difficulties accessing or using the BCH?
  • No
130. Is the information submitted by your country to the BCH complete and up-to date?
  • No
131. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 20 in your country:
All along, the country did not have a dedicated officer to manage the BCH. This has recently been rectified and the country will be updating and submitting information to the BCH regularly.
Article 21 – Confidential information
132. Has your country established procedures to protect confidential information received under the Protocol?
  • Yes
133. Does your country allow the notifier to identify information that is to be treated as confidential?
  • In some cases only
134. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 21 in your country:
The Biosafety Bill under debate has provision for the handling of confidential information.
Article 22 – Capacity-building
135. Has your country received external support or benefited from collaborative activities with other Parties in the development and/or strengthening of human resources and institutional capacities in biosafety?
  • Yes
136. If you answered Yes to question 135, how were these resources made available?
  • Multilateral channels
137. Has your country provided support to other Parties in the development and/or strengthening of human resources and institutional capacities in biosafety?
  • No
139. Is your country eligible to receive funding from the Global Environment Facility (GEF)?
  • Yes
140. Has your country ever initiated a process to access GEF funds for building capacity in biosafety?
  • Yes
141. If you answered Yes to question 140, how would you characterize the process?
Please add further details about your experience in accessing GEF funds under question 150.
  • Average
142. Has your country ever received funding from the GEF for building capacity in biosafety?
  • Development of national biosafety frameworks
  • Implementation of national biosafety frameworks
  • Building Capacity for Effective Participation in the BCH (Phase I)
  • Building Capacity for Effective Participation in the BCH (Phase II)
143. During the current reporting period, has your country undertaken activities for the development and/or strengthening of human resources and institutional capacities in biosafety?
  • Yes
144. If you answered Yes to question 143, in which of the following areas were these activities undertaken?
  • Institutional capacity
  • Human resources capacity development and training
  • Risk assessment and other scientific and technical expertise
  • Risk management
  • Public awareness, participation and education in biosafety
  • Information exchange and data management including participation in the Biosafety Clearing-House
  • Scientific, technical and institutional collaboration at subregional, regional and international levels
  • Identification of LMOs, including their detection
  • Socio-economic considerations
145. During the current reporting period, has your country carried out a capacity-building needs assessment?
  • Yes
146. Does your country still have capacity-building needs?
  • No
148. Has your country developed a capacity-building strategy or action plan?
  • No
149. Has your country submitted the details of national biosafety experts to the Roster of Experts in the BCH?
  • No
150. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 22 in your country, including further details about your experience in accessing GEF funds:
Although the country has previously benefitted from various capacity building support, there is still need for further skills enhancement of various actors within the subject as indicated above. It is believed that much of the implementation can be achieved if more and intensive support is received by all actors. Various government departments with a stake in biosafety have been trained on their roles within the protocol under a project grant from the Regional Agricultural and Environmental Initiates Network - Africa (RAEIN-Africa). Media personnel and parliamenterians were also trained on modern biotechnology and biosafety issues.

The country has also benefited from UNEP/GEF funding such as the enabling activities for the development of the National Biosafety Framework as well as the training on the BCH. The country has currently applied for the UNEP/GEF funds through a Medium Sized Project proposal for the implementation of the NBF and is eargerly awaiting its approval.
Article 23 – Public awareness and participation
151. Has your country established a strategy or put in place legislation for promoting and facilitating public awareness, education and participation concerning the safe transfer, handling and use of LMOs?
  • No
152. Has your country established a biosafety website?
  • No
153. Has your country established a mechanism to ensure public access to information on living modified organisms that may be imported?
  • Yes, to a limited extent
154. Has your country established a mechanism to consult the public in the decision-making process regarding LMOs?
  • No
155. Has your country established a mechanism to make available to the public the results of decisions taken on LMOs?
  • No
156. Has your country taken any initiative to inform its public about the means of public access to the Biosafety Clearing-House?
  • No
157. In the current reporting period, has your country promoted and facilitated public awareness, education and participation concerning the safe transfer, handling and use of LMOs?
  • Yes
158. If you answered Yes to question 157, has your country cooperated with other States and international bodies?
  • Yes
159. In the current reporting period, how many times has your country consulted the public in the decision-making process regarding LMOs and made the results of such decisions available to the public?
  • None
160. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 23 in your country:
Swaziland has formed a Public Awareness and Public Partciticipation platform which is a multistakeholder forum on biosafety issues. This platform is funded by the Regional Agricultural and Environment Initiatives Network - Africa (RAEIN-Africa) to capacitate selected SADC partner countries. Its objectives are to identify actors on biosafety issues as well as train various stakeholders on modern biotechnology and biosafety issues as well as documentation of the platform's activities. The Platform's outputs include information brochures and posters, TV and radio interviews, newsletters and leaflets.  The platform has established a strong link with the media fraternity which has helped raise the profile of Biotechnolgy and Biosafety issues coverage. This has provided a good platform for influencing policy as well as as an opportunity for public participation.
Article 24 – Non-Parties
161. Has your country entered into any bilateral, regional, or multilateral agreement with non-Parties regarding transboundary movements of LMOs?
  • No
162. Has your country ever imported LMOs from a non-Party?
  • No
163. Has your country ever exported LMOs to a non-Party?
  • No
Article 25 – Illegal transboundary movements
168. Has your country adopted domestic measures aimed at preventing and/or penalizing transboundary movements of LMOs carried out in contravention of its domestic measures to implement this Protocol?
  • No
169. Has your country established a strategy for detecting illegal transboundary movements of LMOs?
  • No
170. In the current reporting period, how many times has your country received information concerning cases of illegal transboundary movements of an LMO to or from territories under its jurisdiction?
  • Never
175. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 25 in your country:
Even though there are no reported cases of illegal transboundary movement, there is need to strengthen enforcement measures, particularly among communities along the border lines. The public awareness platform has developed manuals and guidelines to conduct intensive training for personnel at ports of entry.
Article 26 – Socio-economic considerations
176. If your country has taken a decision on import, has it ever taken into account socio-economic considerations arising from the impact of the LMO on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity?
  • Yes
177. Has your country cooperated with other Parties on research and information exchange on any socio-economic impacts of LMOs?
  • Yes, to a limited extent
178. Here you may provide further details on the implementation of Article 26 in your country:
RAEIN-Africa has been instrumental on capacity building on how to incorporate socio-economic considerations on decisions made for the introduction of LMOs. A national study was undertaken on identification of socio-economic issues relating to biotechnology development, the results of which will feed into a regional pilot study being carried out by the network.
Article 27 – Liability and Redress
179. Has your country signed the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress?
  • No
180. Has your country initiated steps towards ratification, acceptance or approval of the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol?
  • Yes
181. Here you may provide further details on any activities undertaken in your country towards the implementation of the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress:
A cabinet paper to facilitate signing of the Supplementary protocol has been submitted.
Article 33 – Monitoring and reporting
182. Has your country submitted the previous national reports (Interim and First National Reports)?
  • Yes
183. If your country did not submit previous reports, indicate the main challenges that hindered the submission
  • Not applicable
Other information
184. Please use this field to provide any other information on issues related to national implementation of the Protocol, including any obstacles or impediments encountered.
The process of developing a National Biosafety Framework has managed to raise the profile of biosafety issues in the country. This process was initiated in 2003 with the support of UNEP-GEF. However, the approval process of the various instruments, i.e. policy and Bill has taken longer than anticipated, much to the detriment of their implementation. The products of modern biotechnology are already being commercialised by neighbouring South Africa, necessitating Swaziland to move faster since these products may find their way into the country. Without an institutional and legal framework, Swaziland will not be able to effectively monitor these products for both environmental and health impacts. As a country, Swaziland welcomes capacity building initiatives like those from RAEIN-Africa, which focus on raising awareness and capacitating the general public in participating in decision making process as required by Artcile 23 of the protocol.

Re: Q. 14 - Swaziland acceeded to the Protocol on 13th January 2006.                                                                                                 
Comments on reporting format
185. Please use this field to provide any other information on difficulties that you have encountered in filling in this report.
The format used enables focussed reporting on the protocol since it covers all detail within the Articles.
Survey on indicators of the Strategic Plan (2014)
In decision BS-VI/15, Parties requested the Executive Secretary to conduct a dedicated survey to gather information corresponding to indicators in the Strategic Plan that could not be obtained from the second national reports or through other existing mechanisms.

The answers to the survey are displayed below.
When did your national biosafety framework become operational?
indicator 1.1.1
  • 2013
Here you may provide further details
Two core support sources; these include   1. UNEP/GEF Project on Capacity Building for implementation of the NBF  2. RAEIN Africa support for Awareness raising and Public Participation in implementing the NBF.
Survey 4. How many biosafety short-term training programmes and/or academic courses are offered annually in your country?
indicator 1.2.3
  • None
Here you may provide further details
Capacity building has only focused on National workshops aimed at general awareness issues covering Biotechnology and Biosafety.
Survey 5. Does your country have in place a functional national mechanism for coordinating biosafety capacity-building initiatives?
indicator 1.2.4
  • Yes
Here you may provide further details
The National Competent Authority and the National Biosafety Advisory committee as well as the Public Participation and Awareness Platform (PAPP) formed through RAEIN Africa are mechanisms which are coordination all capacity building initiatives and they cut across various sectors and stakeholders.
Survey 6. How much additional funding (in the equivalent of US dollars) has your country mobilized in the last four years to support implementation of the Biosafety Protocol, beyond the regular national budgetary allocation?
indicator 1.2.5
  • 100,000 USD or more
Survey 7. Does your country have predictable and reliable funding for building capacity for the effective implementation of the Protocol?
indicator 1.2.6
  • No
Here you may provide further details
Apart from the UNEP/GEF and RAEIN-AFRICA once off support, there is no other support.
Survey 8. How many LMO-related collaborative bilateral/multilateral arrangements has your country established with other Parties/non-Parties?
indicator 1.2.8
  • None
Survey 9. Has your country adopted or used any guidance documents for the purpose of conducting risk assessment and/or risk management?
indicator 1.3.1.1
Survey 9.a) Risk assessment
  • No
Survey 9.b) Risk management
  • No
Survey 10. Has your country adopted or used any guidance documents for the purpose of evaluating risk assessment reports submitted by notifiers?
indicator 1.3.1.2
  • No
Survey 11. Has your country adopted any common approaches to risk assessment with other countries?
indicator 1.3.2
  • No
Survey 12. Has your country ever conducted a risk assessment of an LMO?
indicator 1.3.3
  • No
Survey 13. Does your country have the capacity to identify, assess and/or monitor living modified organisms or specific traits that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking into account risks to human health?
indicator 1.4.2
Survey 13.a) Identify
  • Yes
Survey 13.b) Assess
  • No
Survey 13.c) Monitor
  • No
Here you may provide further details
Swaziland has recently passed the Biosafety Legislation, and is currently on the verge of having it to become operational. Currently there are no GMOs / LMOs that have been allowed into the country. The Competent Authority (CA) has established the GMO Registry and has assisted the Minister to identify the National Biosafety Advisory Committee (NBAC) which has a sole responsibility of undertaking Risk Analysis and Risk Management of GMOs and give advice to the NCA regarding any application that will be recieved once the Act comes into force.   Also the NCA is at an infant stage of signing a Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) with the University of Swaziland to use their laboratory at the Faculty of Agriculture for GM detection. The Ministry of Agriculture will be our first step in bid to identify LMOs / GMOs in the country which will in turn facilitate their (GMO) assessment and monitoring. Going forward, the monitoring of GMOs/LMOs will be facilitated by inspectors, as the Act dictates.
Survey 14. Does your country have available any guidance for the purpose of ensuring the safe handling, transport, and packaging of living modified organisms?
indicator 1.6.4
  • No
Here you may provide further details
The NCA has been developing Administrative Guidelines and Biosafety Regulations under the Biosafety Act, which is main objective is to ensure safe handling, transport and use of LMOs. However these have not been operationalized as yet.
Survey 15. Does your country have any specific approaches or requirements that facilitate how socio-economic considerations should be taken into account in LMO decision making?
indicator 1.7.2
  • No
Here you may provide further details
However the Biosafety Act advocates that any applicant that will want to introduce GMOs into the country should, through the NCA, facilitate an advertisement on the media for the public to review and submit comments and these may cover socio-economic issues as well, which will be used by the National Biosafety Advisory Committee (NBAC) in advising the NCA.
Survey 16. How many peer-reviewed published materials has your country used for the purpose of elaborating or determining national actions with regard to socio-economic considerations?
indicator 1.7.1
  • None
Survey 17. What is your country's experience, if any, in taking socio-economic considerations into account in LMO decision making?
indicator 1.7.3
No decision yet undertaken
Survey 18. Does your country have the capacity to take appropriate measures in the event that an LMO is unintentionally released?
indicator 1.8.3
  • Yes
Here you may provide further details
The Environment Management Act, 2002 and the Biosafety Act, 2012 have clauses that account for unintentional accidents/spills.
Survey 19. How many people in your country have been trained in risk assessment, monitoring, management and control of LMOs?
indicator 2.2.3
Survey 19.a) Risk assessment
  • 10 or more
Survey 19.b) Monitoring
  • 10 or more
Survey 19.c) Management / Control
  • 10 or more
Here you may provide further details
Through the UNEP/GEF project on the development of the NBF and in collaboration with FAO a one week training course was undertaken on about 15 officials from various institutions. However these training workshops are mere an introductory training to make officials aware of what is to be expected but are not good enough to equip the trainees for thorough analysis.    one or two others have attended the Norwergian sponsored training on risk assessment.    Capacity building on Risk Assessment and Risk Management of LMO is anticipated to begin in the first quarter of the year 2014, through the assistance of the UNEP-GEF Capacity Building Project. this will focus on the members of the National Biosafety Advisory Committee.
Survey 20. Does your country have the infrastructure (e.g. laboratory facilities) for monitoring or managing LMOs?
indicator 2.2.4
  • Yes
Here you may provide further details
The country does have the infrastructure (Laboratories), but most of the laboratories do not have the equipment to detect, assess and monitor LMOs.
Survey 21. Is your country using training material and/or technical guidance for training in risk assessment and risk management of LMOs?
indicator 2.2.5
  • No
Survey 22. Are the available training materials and technical guidance on risk assessment and risk management of LMOs sufficient and effective?
indicator 2.2.6
Survey 22.a) Sufficient
  • No
Survey 22.b) Effective
  • No
Survey 23. How many customs officers in your country have received training in the identification of LMOs?
indicator 2.3.1
  • None
Here you may provide further details
The UNEP-GEF project facilitates the training of inspectors and other inspectorate bodies. This activity is still about to be implemented. Customs officials will forma major component of this. however, the funds seem to be very limiting.
Survey 24. How many laboratory personnel in your country have received training in detection of LMOs?
indicator 2.3.1
  • One or more
Here you may provide further details
Under the Southern African Capacity Building for Laboratory for Detection of GMOs (SANGL) about three Laboratory Personnel were trained on detection of LMOs
Survey 25. Does your country have reliable access to laboratory facilities for the detection of LMOs?
indicator 2.3.2
  • Yes
Here you may provide further details
Holding Political relations to be the same as currently, Swaziland utilizes the University of Bloemfontein for an independent analysis of samples for LMO detection.
Survey 26. How many laboratories in your country are certified for LMO detection?
indicator 2.3.3
  • None
Survey 27. How many of the certified laboratories in the previous question are operational?
indicator 2.3.4
  • None
Survey 28. Has your country received any financial and/or technical assistance for capacity-building in the area of liability and redress relating to living modified organisms?
indicator 2.4.1
  • No
Survey 29. Does your country have administrative or legal instrument that provide for response measures for damage to biodiversity resulting from living modified organisms?
indicator 2.4.2
  • No
Survey 30. Has your country informed the public about existing modalities for public participation in the decision-making process regarding living modified organisms?
indicator 2.5.2
  • Yes
Here you may provide further details
Through the establishment of the Public Awareness and Participation Platform (PAPP) the general public were made aware through various methodologies on their rights and modalities of voices their concerns on any LMO introduced in the country.
Survey 31. If you answered yes to the previous question, please indicate the modalities used to inform the public?
indicator 2.5.2
  • National website
  • Newspaper
  • Forums
  • Mailing lists
  • Public hearings
Survey 32. If you indicated multiple modalities for public participation in the question above, which one was most used?
indicator 2.5.2
  • Newspaper
Survey 33. How many academic institutions in your country are offering biosafety education and training courses and programmes?
indicator 2.7.1
  • None
Survey 34. How many biosafety training materials and/or online modules are available in your country?
indicator 2.7.2
  • None
Survey 35. Does your country have in place a monitoring and/or an enforcement system?
indicator 3.1.6
Survey 35.a) Monitoring system
  • No
Survey 35.b) Enforcement system
  • No
Survey 36. Please indicate the number of regional, national and international events organized in relation to biosafety (e.g. seminars, workshops, press conferences, educational events, etc.,) in the last 2 years.
indicator 4.3.1
  • 5 or more
Here you may provide further details
Over 5 National workshops and seminars undertake involving legislators, government executives, media houses, Schools, and Tertiary Institutions
Survey 37. Please indicate the number of biosafety related publications that has been made available in your country in the last year.
indicator 4.3.2
  • None
Survey 38. If biosafety related publications were made available (see question above), please indicate which modalities were preferred.
indicator 4.3.2
  • Government Reports
Survey 39. How many collaborative initiatives (including joint activities) on the Cartagena Protocol and other Conventions and processes has your government established in the last 4 years?
indicator 5.2.1
  • One or more
Here you may provide further details
Collaboration with RAEIN AFRICA, a sub regional organization undertaking capacity building on innovations, public awareness, and socio-economic considerations on biosafety.
Survey 40. Does your country have any awareness and outreach programmes on biosafety?
indicator 5.3.1
  • Yes
Here you may provide further details
PAPP (Public Awareness and Participation Platform) has been undertaking various outreach activities working with the NCA which covered: Debates, Media houses study tours, CSO Workshops, Politicians Seminars.
Survey 41. If you answered yes to the question above, please indicate what entity is responsible for carrying out the programmes and/or services and at which level the programmes take place.
indicator 5.3.1
E.g. local, national, etc.,
The National Competent Authority in Collaboration with the University of Swaziland.
Survey 42. Has your country designed and/or implemented an outreach/communication strategy on biosafety?
indicator 5.3.2
  • No
Survey 43. Please indicate the number of educational materials on biosafety that are available and accessible to the public.
indicator 5.3.4
  • One or more
Here you may provide further details
Flyers, Posters, Cabinet and Parliamentary policy notes.